Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8007081" data-attributes="member: 70468"><p>It’s strongly implied in the GMing section of the CRB that you’re typically using skill actions to make skill checks, so I’d posit those restrictions should apply. Of course, when you’re not, there shouldn’t be overlap (e.g., gaining influence uses skill checks but functions separately from the action economy).</p><p></p><p>That they seemingly disregard this in published adventures is interesting, but I wonder if that was a mistake. Do they do that even in newer ones like Extinction Curse?</p><p></p><p>We had a similar situation when the PCs met a necromancer while exploring. I wanted them to be able to get information out of him, and the usual framework of Make an Impression then a request felt like a poor fit, so I improvised something using VP. Of course, only the face decided to participate, but it worked well.</p><p></p><p>The way I’d run that distraction is to have the performer just do it. If they’re a bard, they could even use that to buff the rogue’s attempt to infiltrate. Otherwise, it’s just part of the narrative framework that lets the rogue infiltrate.</p><p></p><p>Of course, there is also a VP system for infiltration, so now I wonder if the game has bifurcated its resolution options. You’ve got the very crunchy manifestation of the old way PF1 did it, but you’ve also got a free-form and more modern (à la <a href="https://bladesinthedark.com/progress-clocks" target="_blank">clocks</a>) approach as well.</p><p></p><p>I liked the way VP ran when I used it, but it exists mostly (if not completely) separately from skill actions/feats. This feels like a potential point of friction, but I wonder if the problem is really skill feats. I’d really like to hear from Paizo what their intent is because it feels currently like they’re sending mixed messages. On one hand, the rulebooks are saying you usually use skill actions, which are very prescriptive, but their adventures are doing something else.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It affects other forms of unarmed attacks too. The lizardfolk ancestry can beef up its unarmed attacks, but if you try to make a lizardfolk fighter, a bunch of your class feats just won’t work with it. That’s presumably why they made the changes they did in the errata, since even the monk would work poorly with a lizardfolk’s natural attacks as the CRB was originally published.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8007081, member: 70468"] It’s strongly implied in the GMing section of the CRB that you’re typically using skill actions to make skill checks, so I’d posit those restrictions should apply. Of course, when you’re not, there shouldn’t be overlap (e.g., gaining influence uses skill checks but functions separately from the action economy). That they seemingly disregard this in published adventures is interesting, but I wonder if that was a mistake. Do they do that even in newer ones like Extinction Curse? We had a similar situation when the PCs met a necromancer while exploring. I wanted them to be able to get information out of him, and the usual framework of Make an Impression then a request felt like a poor fit, so I improvised something using VP. Of course, only the face decided to participate, but it worked well. The way I’d run that distraction is to have the performer just do it. If they’re a bard, they could even use that to buff the rogue’s attempt to infiltrate. Otherwise, it’s just part of the narrative framework that lets the rogue infiltrate. Of course, there is also a VP system for infiltration, so now I wonder if the game has bifurcated its resolution options. You’ve got the very crunchy manifestation of the old way PF1 did it, but you’ve also got a free-form and more modern (à la [URL='https://bladesinthedark.com/progress-clocks']clocks[/URL]) approach as well. I liked the way VP ran when I used it, but it exists mostly (if not completely) separately from skill actions/feats. This feels like a potential point of friction, but I wonder if the problem is really skill feats. I’d really like to hear from Paizo what their intent is because it feels currently like they’re sending mixed messages. On one hand, the rulebooks are saying you usually use skill actions, which are very prescriptive, but their adventures are doing something else. It affects other forms of unarmed attacks too. The lizardfolk ancestry can beef up its unarmed attacks, but if you try to make a lizardfolk fighter, a bunch of your class feats just won’t work with it. That’s presumably why they made the changes they did in the errata, since even the monk would work poorly with a lizardfolk’s natural attacks as the CRB was originally published. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience
Top